__/ [ William Poaster ] on Monday 22 January 2007 23:07 \__
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:13:32 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> William Poaster <wp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:50:55 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> How Microsoft Lost a Customer
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | While growing up I only used Microsoft products as I had no need to
>>>> | use anything else. When Windows XP first came out I purchased it
>>>> | within a week of its release date. At that point you could have even
>>>> | called me a Microsoft Fanboy as anything Microsoft did was absolutely
>>>> | correct there was no other way.
>>>> |
>>>> | [...]
>>>> |
>>>> | Today I use Linux, but still follow Microsoft because that is what
>>>> | the average person uses. For me to convert back to Windows it will
>>>> | take Microsoft about two years of staying on top of updates and
>>>> | having a secure operating system. Right now I want to believe in
>>>> | Microsoft, but their history speaks for them. It is hard to believe
>>>> | that they have changed until its proven with the test of time.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://zacgarrett.com/2006/12/17/How-Microsoft-Lost-a-Customer/
>>>>
>>>> If Zac could make this mental and technical transition, so can our
>>>> resident trolls.
>>>
>>> I doubt they (the trolls) could tie their own bootlaces (if they're
>>> allowed to have shoes with laces in the "home"). Before I filtered them,
>>> the trolls used to regularly post that they couldn't do this, couldn't
>>> do that, etc in linux (maybe they still do). I often wondered whether
>>> they could find their own arse with both hands, & did they know how
>>> incompetent & stupid they looked....or did they even care. Lord knows
>>> who would employ them, I *certainly* wouldn't have.
>>>
>>>
>> Interesting observation on employability. We've just, finally, let go our
>> last au-pair. We've had several nannies, followed by several au-pairs
>> (when the kids were old enough not to need formally trained carers). Our
>> very last au-pair was by far the least capable character we've had, I can
>> only describe him as a mummy's boy. He was not really able to take care
>> of himself, let alone anyone else; he couldn't cook, clean, was
>> unreliable about personal hygeine, didn't understand basics like at what
>> temperature germs die, couldn't really drive (managed to crash the car on
>> first time out, into a wall!). He could, however, manage to get onto a
>> chat server, and would spend as much of his spare time as he could on
>> audio/video chat.
>>
>> We've had some fantastically good nannies and au-pairs, some of whom we're
>> still in touch with now, and some who I doubt are ever likely to retain
>> any gainful employment for any reasonable period. Perhaps these are the
>> kind of people who end up trolling usenet for a few groat?
>
> Could be! Your description above sounds like a profile of some of the
> wintrolls in here.
Behind the scenes, I have been getting some E-mails from people who read the
newgroup. There is good evidence to suggest that quite a fe of them (not
all) are being compensated for their endeavours. Erik is probably a
'veteran' because his work goes back to the OS/2 forums. We already have
concrete proof that these had heavy-duty astroturfing budgets behind them.
it's all over the news and yet the trolls shy away any time it's mentioned.
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | #FFFFFFF4 ADD &R1, "9999999", &BankAccount
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 31.7% user, 4.4% system, 0.4% nice, 63.5% idle
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
|
|
